PDA

View Full Version : 2 "easy" B-25 variants (B-25C/D strafer and B-25J strafer)



Tater-SW-
07-30-2005, 10:48 PM
I know such things are rarely as easy as we would like, but this seems to be.

The B-25C/D strafer (D is virtually identical to C):
Take current B-25C, remove belly gun. Add 2x50 cal cheek guns to each side. Add 4x50 cal in the nose in the flat glass that the bombsight looks through. Paint over the glass in front.


The B-25J strafer field mod:

There was a factory solid-nose B-25J, but the nose is a different shape, so that isn't "easy."

Field mod would be VERY easy. Remover the nose positions for players (bombadier and nose gun). Allow the skin to paint over the glass on the nose. Add 2 50 cals (500 rpg) on each side of the bombsight window panel, and keep the flex gun in the nose, but fixed straight forward with pilot shooting it.

tater

Tater-SW-
07-30-2005, 10:48 PM
I know such things are rarely as easy as we would like, but this seems to be.

The B-25C/D strafer (D is virtually identical to C):
Take current B-25C, remove belly gun. Add 2x50 cal cheek guns to each side. Add 4x50 cal in the nose in the flat glass that the bombsight looks through. Paint over the glass in front.


The B-25J strafer field mod:

There was a factory solid-nose B-25J, but the nose is a different shape, so that isn't "easy."

Field mod would be VERY easy. Remover the nose positions for players (bombadier and nose gun). Allow the skin to paint over the glass on the nose. Add 2 50 cals (500 rpg) on each side of the bombsight window panel, and keep the flex gun in the nose, but fixed straight forward with pilot shooting it.

tater

Daiichidoku
07-30-2005, 11:34 PM
would seem to be easy to have all the 25s flyable, with wee changes...

sadly, i doubt it will ever happen

id luv to use that 75mm

Tater-SW-
07-31-2005, 06:54 AM
The factory built strafers had no copilot position, and were pretty radically different in the cockpit.

I'm asking for versions that would only require small external model changes, and in the case of the flyable the DELETION of crew areas modeled with no internal changes at all that require building anything.

tater

Kernow
07-31-2005, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
would seem to be easy to have all the 25s flyable, with wee changes...

sadly, i doubt it will ever happen

id luv to use that 75mm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would you need that isn't already in the game? FMs and weapons must be done for the AI versions.

I think the position of the top gun is the only thing.

'C' would use current cockpits but wouldn't need the tail gun. (repositioned top gun needed)

'H' would use current cockpits but solid nose means no need for the nose-gunner & bombardier positions.

There appears absolutely no reason why the H, at least, couldn't be flyable. I assume there must be something else; it wouldn't be AI only otherwise, surely..?

Tater-SW-
07-31-2005, 09:33 AM
The H needs an entirely new cockpit, it had no copilot position at all.

H cockpit. Not at all an easy change.
http://www.341stbombgroup.org/aircraft/aircraft_341st/h-ckpit2.jpg



The C/D for flyable would need a new cockpit as well since the top turret is visible from within the current cockpit for the J. That is why I never suggested making the C/D flyable as "easy," it is not easy, it is hard. The external/loadout changes to make the field-mod C/D strafers IS easy, however (as AI only).

The changes needed to make a J field mod strafer are also EASY as they require no cockpit/gunner art to be added at all, just deleting some of the art already done.

tater

Grey_Mouser67
07-31-2005, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately, PF never got the attention it deserved. I think Oleg and crew made some money at it so that is good, but the game is really half baked. I was expecting much more development after the release than what I've seen.

I'm fairly certain it wouldn't happen, but I really wish the 1C could and would turn the game over to a 3rd party group for continued development...obviously there'd have to be money in it for both parties and the add on's would have to be developed in a way that it didn't directly compete with future games Maddox puts out....we're really missing some major elements of this game:

Solomon Islands chain
Burma
Philippines
A couple more Island chains

F4U-4
P-47N
Helldiver
Avenger
Ki-44
Ki-45
Ki-27
Ki-21
Ki-48
Nell
Judy
Kate
Jill
Current Japanese AI's to be flyable like George and Ki-43II
B-25 Gunships like the thread started with
P-38F,G, and H
P-51A

The sheer size of this list is indicative of the missing stuff...nothing wrong with making scaled down maps either...better than none!

And then there is the missing European stuff and I'll list those that I think will not ever make it:
P-47M and D-30 w/ HVAR's
Spit Mk XIV ???
B-26
Flyable Heavy
Bf-110C
Typhoon
Hs129
Expanded Channel scenarios
Expanded Bastogne Map
I'm pretty hopeful we'll get N Africa
Holland
Fjords!! I think you could sell an entire title if a good map maker took the time to make some really cool looking fjords and put in some ships to sink along with it~

Need more vessles like Cruisers, Japanese Subs, barges, PT boats and any other san-pans, frigates etc worth blowing up.


There is a trend starting in the PC gaming industry and that is overhauling old games and game engines and squeezing more life out of them...PF is similar to that but the BoBII is another good example...that game will never be what IL series is/has become but I'll bet people buy it at the ridiculous price and the fact is that Shockwave will make money on it like they did their firepower add-on....

So Oleg...how about it? Maybe Shockwave or someone like them to partner with? Might be a lucrative arrangement for both parties...Pacific Fighters II...a venture that wouldn't tie up any more of your cash...one that could be downloaded off a sight as opposed to having to be released on CD? Of course there is more opportunity to re release I think...much more publicity and now Oleg has cracked the "merged" idea which I think will make him much money into the future...now you can add on and charge money and just "merge" instead of providing free patches!

Tater-SW-
07-31-2005, 12:23 PM
Agreed, but the point of this thread is not all the other screw-ups/omissions, but rather the fact that the C/D strafer and field-mod J strafer would be extremely easy to do, unlike many of your (admittedly good) suggestions. (since they involve very minor external changes, and deletion of internal positions only)


tater

WarWolfe_1
07-31-2005, 08:21 PM
I agree with grey...........PF has some critical gaps, cats on carriers(taking off with full war load is near impossible), the strafing 25's were used quiet abit for landing support, the P-38 played a far larger role in PTO than the 3 models we have now.
I know no game can be all incompassing but to leave out things that were everyday part of life in PTO isn't cool.

An Pay for Addon for PF would be a very good thing indeed. I wont hold my breath though.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Tater-SW-
07-31-2005, 10:36 PM
Further work on the CVs is semi-pointless without a complete overhaul of ship behaviors (or lack of behaviors) and DM.

1. CVs can't be used in DFs properly since they don't move (from an ops standpoint, as well as hunting static vs moving objects).

2. Ships cannot evade.

3. Ships are too hard to damage, and too easy to sink.

4. There is no possibility of realistic CV ops in PF since there is no plane spotting, etc. Without discrete TO vs landing ops, refuel/rearm times, etc, CV play is unrealistic.

Because of the above, concentrating on what the engine actually does WELL would make more sense. The strafers of the SWPA fit the bill nicely!

tater

Dengue.ZA
08-02-2005, 03:37 AM
Agreed Tater. It would take very, very little to salvage a workable PNG/Solomon scenario. Rather do the Marines and 5thAF properly than waste what little effort remains on the Navy fiasco.

RAF238thKnight
08-02-2005, 05:22 AM
`Oleg created a Runway with a spawn point in the air at 2000 meters. Why can he take that same runway ship and give it a specific air flow direction then maybe getting off the deck with load out would be possible.

Knight

charlielima
08-03-2005, 10:32 PM
Good to see folks jumping on the solid nose B25 / PBJ issue. Lets not forget about P61s and P70s too. cl

Tater-SW-
08-03-2005, 11:33 PM
Actually I'm specifically not for the solid nose J. The solid nose J requires a new nose external. Many glass nosed Js were turned into strafers by removing a couple panes of plexi on either side of the center bombsight panel and installing 2x0.50 cal there (along with the regula 1 fixed forward in the greenhouse).

The remaining plexiglass was frequently just painted over.

So a modified J strafer has 5 guns in the nose, and 2 gun packs on each side under the cockpit. That's 9 MGs not counting the 2 in the top turret.

A solid-nosed J has 8 guns in the nose in 2 columns of 4 guns. Add in the cheek gun packs and that makes 12 without the top turret. The solid nose version has a totally differnt shaped nose, however.

The field-mod version could be made by pasting gun barrels out the nose, then removing the alpha channel for the glass and painting over it.

tater

JG53Frankyboy
08-04-2005, 04:59 AM
sure a
B-25J with a solid 8x .50cal nose
& a
B-25J as RAF Mitchell without the 4 side .50cal , so a pure bomber

would be very nice , but highly doubtfull .......... as a lot of other "easy" to make modifications of other planes.

Grey_Mouser67
08-06-2005, 03:11 PM
In order to get good use out of a B-25 strafer, I think a look at the DM's of our ships is in order and we really need some more ships.

A HMG should not be able to sink a cruiser, but those fishing boats should be dogmeat! And it should damage, at least to some degeree destroyers and put a hurting on the cargo ships. Sub's should be vulnerable to HMG and cannon fire too....I wonder if the coastal command Beau's and Mosquito's carried AP ammo in their Hispano's...anyone know?

Tater-SW-
08-06-2005, 03:36 PM
Ingeneral all the ships need to be easier to damage, and harder to kill/sink.

tater

p1ngu666
08-06-2005, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In order to get good use out of a B-25 strafer, I think a look at the DM's of our ships is in order and we really need some more ships.

A HMG should not be able to sink a cruiser, but those fishing boats should be dogmeat! And it should damage, at least to some degeree destroyers and put a hurting on the cargo ships. Sub's should be vulnerable to HMG and cannon fire too....I wonder if the coastal command Beau's and Mosquito's carried AP ammo in their Hispano's...anyone know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

almost certainly.
160 rounds per second from a beufighter i think. 40 being 20mm rounds, thats gonna do some damage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Grey_Mouser67
08-06-2005, 07:15 PM
I was thinking that the type of ammo loaded in 20mm cannons might give some insight as to how the ship was being damaged....if they were HE rounds for example, one might jump to the conclusion that the ammo is doing superficial damage to the surfaces and people exposed on the topside of the ship....if they were AP rounds, one could imagine that the rounds were meant to penatrate into the ship and do structural damage and/or damage to the crew inside the ship...boiler etc.

That might be a stretch, but Coastal command aircraft were expected to find and engage U-boats and other ships and all the gun cam film I've seen of beaus and mossies in action has their guns blazing away...in some very unusual circumstances, pilots were even credited with sinking ships...a rarity for sure, but I did see a picture of an aircraft with a ship painted on the side of it...I'm thinking it was a Mustang...there was a story attached and it was a destroyer that was sunk with guns...just wish I remembered where I read/saw that.

Tater-SW-
08-06-2005, 08:58 PM
Well, the ship DM is grossly simpler than the aircraft DM, and in fact it should be grossly more complicated. Someday we'll have a sim that can do both justice. Honestly, to be accuarateit needs to deal with everything on the same scale---ie: one bullet sized chunks of targets.

Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, It's be better to see a ship DM where superficial damage and fires were much easier to start, and sinkling was much harder (or at least took longer to happen). The scoring should then credit damage above a certain level as "probable."

tater